Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 06:09

SN_Rajan wrote: so, what am i missing?

Now that you have read the book, there is nothing for me to answer regarding quotes from that book. If you believe what he says - that is your prerogative. There are some things that I disagree with which I have stated earlier in the thread. You wil need to take the trouble to go back and read them. if you have any specific areas where you think I need to explain my viewpoint please ask, but I am not actually going to do point by point rebuttals of paragraphs you quoted from the book unless you think I have anything to do with them. I have no specific disagreement with large parts of the book.

But I would request you , now that you claim to have read the book, to state the model that Anthony uses for the population of India and the development of Sanskrit and whether you agree with it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 07:27

What was happening across India, Afghanistan and central Asia up to Bactria between 3000 BC and 2000 BC?

There is plenty of archaeological evidence that tells a story.

In India we had the Harappan civilization. It was an urban civilization that built brick cities. They had weights and measures, granaries. They had toys and seals. They had art. They traded with far flung areas like south India, Mesopotamia, Persia and Afghanistan, even Bactria (Turkmenistan)
In Bactria (Turkmenistan) was an urban civilization (BMAC - Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex) with brick buildings and great metallurgy which has evidence of trade with the Harppan civilization.
Mesopotamia is the region of Western Iran and Iraq (eastern Iran was practically an extension of India). It had a thriving urban civilization.

It is clear that the cultures of the entire area from Iraq to India were hardly totally "pastoral". Urban city builders had overrun the area between 3000 and 2000 BC, leaving behind industrial goods and art and evidence of agriculture including cotton.

When the whole area had thriving trade and urbanism between 3000 and 2000 BC, it is difficult to believe that this huge area of urban civilization that had lasted a thousand years or more was suddenly occupied by a pastoral bunch of "Indo-European" people with no writing, no technology to leave behind any major archaeological remains, no toy remains, no jewellery beads, no statues, no brick buildings, no kilns. Nothing

Yet we are told by our peer reviewed historians that the urban civilizations that existed between 3000 BC and 2000 BC extending from Iraq in the wast, to Turkmenistan in the north and north India in the west all suddenly vanished and the whole area wa taken over by a "indo-European" speaking culture that was totally pastoral, had no technology even to build brick houses, left practically nothing behind but they were the rulers of the same area between 2000 BC aand 1000 BC. I beg your pardon for saying this but what the fuk? For 1000 years between 3000 and 2000 BC there was an urban civilization over the entire goddam area. And suddenly after 1900 BC all these primitive pastoral "indo-Europeans" took over the area, forgetting everything about the previous 1000 years?

Do you realize that we actually believe this insufferable crap?

The Rig Vedic people were as primitive as they come. They had no urbanism. They left behind no pottery, jewellery or seals or royal notices carved in stone. They had no writing or notation system. All they had was a top notch system for oral propagation of existing knowledge and language. They were not morons, just primitive. We are the morons to believe that they came lived after 2000 BC because our Indo-European "Pirs" tell us that in their pir reviews.

We have a record of their lives only because the Rig Vedic people developed a great system for preserving language without the inevitable change that linguists state will occur. And they propagated that language without change. But they did not have city building tech. That was to come later.

A record of Vedic knowledge does appear to exist from Harappa - particularly in terms of astronomy (Great Bear) and the calendar.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 07:45

Just look at the map below people. It shows the entire area of the Mesopotamian, BMAC and Harappan civilizations as existed 5000 to 4000 years ago (3000 BC to 2000 BC). these were city building, record keeping, international trading, cotton growing, metallurgically adept civilizations. they all had art, culture, made jewellery and toys that still exist.

And yet, we are told by our pirs that just 3500 years ago (1500 BC) the whole area was occupied by a primitive "pastoral" Indo-European people? People who knew nothing about cities, seals, edicts, trade? This is so stupid that I can't believe that we have believed this all these years. And because our pir ask for horse remains we dhimmis tear each other apart over horse remains. Goddam it - we have remains of entire cities that are far more advanced civilizations than the "pastoral" Indo European speakers, but we look for "horse remains" only to prove to our pirs that they are right and we are wrong. Dhimmis. All of us.

Our pirs have imposed primitivity upon us by telling us of our primitiveness that came 1000 years after our civilization and and all we can do is suck up. We deserve this.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 08:01

Many desi names have already said what i have said. But we identify with Witzel's Harvard as "us", the Brahmins of gyan. Our Pirs come from the north and west where the Aryans came from. From Oxford and Harvard. And it is ONLY their pir reviews that we accept. Surely faith is greater than truth.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jun 2012 09:32

SN_Rajan garu,
Your views are highly illuminating. As to what Indians have lost most seriously as "Hindus" : the ability to question all given wisdoms. Just the more well known Upanishad names would suffice to show what bothered "Vedics" or post-Vedics more, like Kena for example - and what obviously doesn't bother you.

(1) You have declared that you will not accept anything unless they are published in scientific peer reviewed journals. You have mentioned the newsgroups of "Hindu" and Frontline, Witzel's rants, etc as your sources of scientific knowledge and nothing much else. So I am not sure that your definition and concept of science would match exactly with what is generally considered as definition of science among historians of science.

If you are relying on linguistics as a "science" - a lot of subjects that rely on empirically observed correlations alone which are however subject to human choice, strategic thinking and innovation - are all sciences. There are no humanities or arts subjects in the world - they are all "science".

If you are saying archeology is a "science", it is not entirely accurate. It uses "scientific" tools and methods, but by their very subject matter of interest - they do not satisfy one of the major requirements of a "science" : conclusions must be repeatable, independently, based on independent experimental observations [even maths comes under the latter]. Archeologists or historical linguists are necessarily drawing conclusions based on experiments that cannot be repeated - unless you invent a time machine.

The other problem with these two is that their period-assignment to "cultures" have often been done on a cyclical mutually used argument chain - which is entirely different from what it is usually represented as : as that of corroboration, rather than cyclical.

Historical linguistics crucially depend on assumed laws of sound change, which have been drawn both on experimental observations of modern populations [who have already been influenced heavily by preexisting languages and even scripts] as well as earlier "filling the gaps" in turn based on the need to establish imperialist theories. Archeologists may date and artefact - but its culture assignment is done on the basis of linguistic of historians prevailing dogma. Remember the Thaparite dictum "stones do not speak" - they have to be "interpreted" - by "professional" linguists and historians of particular schools - who in turn decide who gets funded or chairs, and thereby channelize the direction of research in ideologically desired directions that you expect to see in "peer reviewed publications".

Even then, as for peer reviewed critics of the Witzelian political lobby within the PIE spectrum, you can look for Kazanas, and Parpola. You did not mention Lal et al in your "scientific" wanderings - so I am assuming you do not trust the Indian authors' publications if they do not support Witzel.

(2) As for defining what "Hindu"s should be, you are entirely free to define the required behaviour to be solely obsessed about appearing totally neutral, and absolutely tolerant of any and every denigration or delegitimization attempted on it. This is how Indian ruling regimes have tried to define the "Hindu" as, for centuries - and wings of the state, including the judiciary have done their bit.

But the totally neutral, never taking sides are in a perpetual unstable equilibrium problem. You will have to constantly calculate how far the extremes have moved and recalculate the strict neutral middle position. Which means you will never be stable in your conclusions since you do not have any independent logical framework to decide. The need to be equidistant is overwhelming.

The danger is that often neutrality hides a tendency to take sides on the side of the safe regime supported one. Typically, for Indians, this takes the form of "oh I am soo neutral, that is why I hate all these saffon extremists". In Brit times the same mentality "hated" those extremist swadeshiwalas and their extremist ideas who rejected all the divine blessing and droppings from the goras. In reality it is not much more than an abject selling out of intellectual independence to the ruling power and dispensation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jun 2012 09:38

classical art form in india is considered to be pure structure form, where variations have rules too.. take for example carnatic music or natya sashtras.. these forms of art were subdued by bloody britishers when they ruled us. they termed these art form as crude immoral and against western civilization. it is now back hail and healthy. one of the fundamental aspects of these art forms is preserving the structure, and they are very strict in rendering the structure as is. these art forms are supposed to be as old as >2000 years per word of mouth/theorists.

during bhakti movement of 13th...14th century onwards, from mirabai,tukaram onwards and down south purandaradas, trinities et al have composed with more with the melakarta raagas (hierachy of raagas) of carnatic music which only was formulated in 15th century, but these raagas existed eons ago... goes beyond dates, and of course keeps maturing as we aged., which is always the case with human brains always inventing and innovating. for the past 1000 years we have only maintained these art forms as is, and with variations ane augmentations.. we have never re-invented them. do we all think even 5000 years back we would have had the guts the change them especially when democracy or freedom is as understood by rules to follow?.. we were more ordained culture.

so, what I am trying to say, is not just languages were by non-script based, but along with living, customs, and espcially the art forms were also non-script based... there was not music worksheets or notes based on which western music is reuqired to follow.. it was all based on geometric and/or arithmetic progression of notes.

art forms existed along with those days when scripts came into ways of living.. and that is when the time we all know, as written forms things began to be represented.. before that these art forms presisted and these swara forms began actually from shiv/rudra's ? .. the sama veda is all based on musical renderings.

these were not in any invasion theorists minds actually when they wrote AIT! or did they try to anlayze these?

I can agree if punk rock is prevalent in India then and now, then I am with AIT as stamped valid and TRUE.

If aryans of the world have some commonality, they should render their customs and traditions wherever they are. If they have not done it, then the migration did not happen towards or from there.

India was unique.. indics were unique, and people from all over the world came towards us to trade, plunder, and to become rich in all forms.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 24 Jun 2012 10:04

Rajiv Malhotra discussing with IIT alumni at Washington DC many of the points we are discussing here

1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZD3D4mAoaE

2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WYZtS_L ... ure=relmfu

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Jun 2012 11:05

On Chariots:
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/chariots.htm

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 Jun 2012 11:27

SaiK wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edakkal_Caves
Mr. Varier said “The discovery of the symbols are akin to that of the Harappan civilisation having predominantly Dravidian culture and testimony to the fact that cultural diffusion could take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edakk ... arving.jpg
first I thought it could be a horse face.. then, naah!

http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/28/stories ... 830300.htm
Archaeologists have been campaigning for world heritage status for Edakkal Cave which is believed to be nearly 7,000 years old.

Swayambhu SaiK ji, if not the horse face then what is it?

Ok that does it. I the Swaymbhu Ravi_G declare that the expanse of SIVC be taken till Kerala.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 13:15

No sources. No pir
http://mysite.verizon.net/mmaidens/prehistory.html
Horses and humans

The Cart Before the Horse? The prevailing view among paleo-historians is that the first horses to be tamed were hitched to carts before being mounted. They base their conclusions on early depictions of horses that appear to be too small to carry an adult human. From studying skeletons, it does appear that Bronze Age horses were only about the size of large ponies, about 14 hands (56") at the shoulder. Although the evidence does not establish conclusively that riding came first, I side with those who believe it did. Bronze Age horses were small, but so were Bronze Age people. Children today find it hard to resist the urge to climb on a pony's back; and it is not likely that human nature was much different in the Bronze Age. And size doesn’t really count -- even a pony can carry an adult a fair distance. It also seems to me that Bronze-Age people would have found it much simpler to climb on the back of a horse and ride off than to spend the days and weeks required to build a complicated rig like a chariot or a cart.

New evidence is emerging to support the view that humans were riding earlier than previously supposed. In Ladakh Zanskar, a region in the Himalaya Mountains of northwest India (claimed also by China), 3,000-year-old rock carvings from an early Tibetan culture clearly show mounted humans, possibly hunting game. Riding horses in the mountains is far more practical than inventing a cart for them to pull. Even today, carts are not found in Ladakh. Their absence is not because the people were too primitive to invent the wheel-- far from it. Wheels symbolized the sun on ancient rock carvings; they were later used to grind grain, and are used today in Tibetan prayer wheels. So the absence of horses pulling carts has nothing to do with wheels and everything to do with the challenging terrain of the Himalayas. I am indebted for this information and the photo to Christian Chabert, who is quite familiar with the Himalaya regions, having traveled to Ladakh Zanskar in 2005 and 2006 and who provided the information and photographs of the rock carvings. He confirmed that "the carvings never show horses hitched to a cart or plow. When humans are shown riding, they are always of a size corresponding to a mounted man."*

Clearly, on the wide steppes, in mountainous regions and in other areas of similarly challenging terrain, the domestication and use of the horse for transport during the Bronze Age (whether for people or possessions) was a major step in promoting population movement. In other parts of the ancient world, it probably was the case that horses were first hitched to wagons and chariots before being ridden. In the less mountainous Middle East, oxen, asses, onagers and other hoofed animals had been drawing carts well before the horse was tamed, and it would not have been impossible to adapt one of those carts for a small horse. And of course, with no one around to teach them, humans had to learn how to ride the hard way, by trial and error. Mounting a horse, however irresistible, is far easier than staying on! The horse's instinct is to panic and run away when someone tries to climb on its back, and to buck wildly once someone manages to get on. It must have taken a long time even after horses were used to being herded for human beings -- and horses -- to adjust to riding.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 24 Jun 2012 13:22

dears:

as one very few in this thread questioning OIT, if you will kindly allow me some 'rhetoric', just to illustrate my objections to the pseudo-scientific fancy OIT extremes - with due apologies, please.

1. There is no PIE. There no proto kroto. There is no language evolution, language family, etc. All linguistics is wrong. In fact, as far as Sanskrit/RV is concerned, it came direct from Sun God, fully developed at birth at c.5000 BCE, right in the banks of river Saraswati - which is nothing but the left bank of river Indus. Understood ?

2. hm, c.5000 BCE? but, what about the IVC, horses, chariots, towns, etc archaeological evidences?
Oh, these are all pure conspiratorial clutches. RV is composed in right in IVC. Period.

3. oh oh - this being a 'technical research' subject, how about some 'Peer Reviewed Scientific Jornal' references, please?
It is so simple, you Dhimmi. All these 'pir's are gora Nazis are wrong, and promoting their dear-most brothers-Slavs in Urals for money. Looks at our own desi mal. We have proof of continuous human civilization from 500,000 years ago in Bellary, and also, for Ram Sethu Bridge - haven't you seen the "URLs"?

Just because of historical, real and imagined wrongs, we can't be fed with pseudo-scientific fancies in 2012. We need to seek our 'dharma' and 'satya' with moderation, not any fancy extremes and superstitions.

now, running for cover...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 13:30

http://news.discovery.com/animals/horse ... 20130.html

After horse domestication began about 10,000 years ago, the study also discovered, horses diverged into at least 18 distinct genetic lines. Those findings suggest that, unlike cows and other animals, horses may have been tamed independently in many different places around Europe and Asia.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 13:45

SN_Rajan wrote:
Just because of historical, real and imagined wrongs, we can't be fed with pseudo-scientific fancies in 2012. We need to seek our 'dharma' and 'satya' with moderation, not any fancy extremes and superstitions.

So that is the sum and substance of your argument? You have nothing new to contribute other than a moralistic lecture about what "we" should do? No robust defence of your opinions? No opinions at all on the issue, other than the lecture. No new evidence from pir reviewed scientific journals? Only "we" need to do this and "we" need to do that.

No problem. This is as far as anyone gets. The actual topic has so little fresh information that neither peer nor pir can prevent you from using rhetoric. Most of us are like you onlee, saying "We must do this" and "We must say that". Didn't you notice?

Welcome to the club, my dear fellow ignoramus and companion in tamas

This is an internet forum and people are allowed to say things as long as they don't needle others and act like trolls looking for mirch masala. Pir reviews are for the brainy people. Non brainy people are allowed here

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 14:38

I have a reason for getting back to the horse and the Rig Veda. Will explain later.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2250784/Rigveda

Saraswati Rig Veda Volume 2

Dr S.Kalyanaraman
Babasaheb (Umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak SamitiBangalore 2003
pg 152

The use of the term 'ra_sabhas'vinoh'is significant; ra_sabha was also categorised asan as'va, an equus, a clear indication that thedonkeys, onagers and horses (all part of thegenus as'va, equus) were yoked to the chariotsin R.gvedic times. The use of the word 'as'va'should not automatically lead one to assumethat equus caballus is implied by the word.

pg 160

As’va, horse or onager?
It should also be noted that 'as'va' is a genericterm for equus species and can as well beinterpreted to connote an onager

Pg 192

It is not mere poetic fancy that the steeds of theratha of the as'vins are not a pair of
equuscaballus but gardabha-s, asses. The horse race is won by the as'vins. The horse, ass and onagerwere apparently viewed, in R.gvedic times, asbelonging to the 'equus' species. It is knownthat the early chariots of Mesopotamia were drawn by onagers.

193

Sumeriansemployed the onager ( Equus onager Pallas),yoked in the manner of oxen to draw warchariots and passenger vehicles. Note the quiverwith spears carried on the wagon andvanquished soldier crushed under the onagers."It is most unlikely that horses were firstdomesticated or yoked to chariots inMesopotamia, for the wild equid to be expectedin that area was the onager, which had in factbeen tamed there by 3000 BCE. It is true that asingle pictographic tablet of about that datecontains the sign, compounded of 'ass' and'mountain', that a thousand years later was to beregular cuneiform ideogram for 'horse'.

219

.Zeuner (p.329) sums up (the chronologicfal scheme of Gordon Childe): 'He believes that the wheeled cartand the potter's wheel are both inventions of theUruk culture of southern Mesopotamia and thatthis happened before 3500 BCE. There isevidence that the wheeled cart was preceded bythe sledge, and sledges have been found in theroyal tombs of Ur which are at least 1000 yearsyounger. The earliest evidence consists of scriptsigns on late Uruk tablets (Childe, Fig. 1). Whilstit is generally agreed that the earliest wheeledcarts were drawn by oxen, onager bones werefound in the chariot graves of the Y Cemetery of Kish, which is of Ealry Dynastic I date. Onagerswere buried with the sledger of Queen Shub-ad,whilst the king's grave contained two ox-waggons.These finds are Early Dynastic III. From this andother evidence it is to be inferred that inMesopotamia the ox was replaced by the swifteronager, though not universally, early in the thirdmillennium BCE. Childe held that this is thesource of wheeled vehicles, that they reached theIndus Valley by about 2500 BC, north Syria --2200 BC, Crete -- 1900 BC, Greece -- 1550 BC,south Russia -- 1400 BC, north Italy -- 1100 BC,central and northern Europe -- 1000 BCE andBritain -- 500 BCE. This sequence looks indeed convincing, though new finds are apt to modify it..."With its late reception of chariotry, no less thanwith its late domestication of the horse, South Russia must be ruled out. It cannot figure as a significant centre of early Aryan radiation...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 Jun 2012 15:53

While not new to the subject, I am rather unschooled in it. So I might be asking a "who was Sita" sort of question here, but let me ask it nevertheless:

What exactly is "European" about the so-called "proto Indo-European" languages? As far as I know, Europe ends on the west of the Bosphorous, and a rough line northward. We have always been trying to explain why the "Indo" is there, and that's quite clear, but why is the "European" there?

Like I said, I'm unschooled in the subject, so a simple straightforward, "hey moron, this is why" answer will do.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 Jun 2012 16:00

That is what I meant shiv ji when ManishH ji posted some entry to the effect that at Surkotada bones of Horses, Asses and Onagers were found at the same place.

Probably all of them eaten too. In and around Kutch to this day the meat of the Wild Ass is considered a delicacy. Probably killed to this day inspite of the ban.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 Jun 2012 16:03

Shiv ji,

in one of the links latest posted by A_Gupta ji seems like a chariot with solid wheels instead of spoked wheels. You need to check it out.

Also the painted spokes on a disc wheels is there.

Both off course being later illustrations than the period being discussed.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 24 Jun 2012 16:46

Shiv Ji,

Apologies for my 'rhetoric'.

I am one of those youngsters lurking/reading up your writings in BR, especially the Paki and US threads, and we all look up to you, and i have great respect for you.

with all that due respect, i do disagree with you on this topic as i see mostly fancy pseudo-scientific speculation, and indiscriminate trashing of all disagreements.

in my short googling, i read-up Witzel paper, and the hindu and frontline debates, and i find it reasonable.

btw, i am not sure here how many here have actually read Witzel to call his views Nazi - anybody please do quote 'his first-hand writings' that are Nazi?

i also read few chapters of Anthony - again i find it reasonable.

i have said so in my post: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1301188
plus, further clarifications on my views: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1301188

now, i am trying try to find counter-evidence. gievn the nature of topic, i wanted 'peer reviewed scientific journals'

so far, i do not find anything credible and coherent, capable of explaining all the factors under 'logical parsimony'. i see lots and lots of speculation and assorted pseudo-science.

the 1 publication(Kazanas) that wiki refers in OIT page seems to be reservation/special candidate, not a merit candiate.

while further browsing in this thread itself - i see clinching rebuttals from ManishH:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1300141

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1300080

you freely say:

shiv wrote:A record of Vedic knowledge does appear to exist from Harappa - particularly in terms of astronomy (Great Bear) and the calendar.

one will ask where is the evidence? what is credibility of the evidence? what kind of scientific peer review rigor has gone into that evidence? if it is all sorted out, why is not yet appearing any scientific journals? surely we have desi's who publish do in other scientific journals and do get recognition(Amartya Sen, Venkatrman, etc, etc) - but, none in OIT?

so, given all that, what conclusions one is supposed to draw?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 Jun 2012 17:37

Rajan ji,
Even though your question was to shiv, it will help others too to understand your point so :

btw, i am not sure here how many here have actually read Witzel to call his views Nazi - anybody please do quote 'his first-hand writings' that are Nazi?
i also read few chapters of Anthony - again i find it reasonable.

I went to the link posted by you, you merely waved your hand and said you find Witzel to be credible, that's fine, but could you state what you found to be credible and why and why 40 pages of thread is just a speculation?, without that what you say indeed sounds rhetorical.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2012 17:49

SN_Rajan wrote:Shiv Ji,

Apologies for my 'rhetoric'.

I am one of those youngsters lurking/reading up your writings in BR

'Youngster'? Well we have only your word for that. Is that Peer-Reviewed?

SN_Rajan wrote:i see mostly fancy pseudo-scientific speculation, and indiscriminate trashing of all disagreements.

1) Speculation: per definition that is what AIT is. Whatever explanations the AIT-Nazis have been giving are pure speculation based only on selective and twisted reading of the archaeological findings. Since the AIT-Nazis themselves know that they are building sand castles in the sky, everywhere in their papers, they punctuate everything with "words of caution", "probability", "could-bes", etc. but in the next paper, all that speculation is taken for justified, and the theoretical line of attack is moved every time a bit forward.

2) Pseudo-Science: per definition that is what AIT linguistics is. If they weren't they would be using not sound change laws, but rather looking at how a particular substratum language and cultural articulation form causes a change in phonetics of a language, and would not be using counter-logical language trees but rather influence graphs to map language evolution.

3) Disagreement: per definition that is what OIT is - it is a disagreement with an established AIT academic and political order.

4) Indiscriminate trashing: per definition that is the usual attitude of the AIT-Nazis. They do not discuss the evidence, the logic, the basic assumptions. No they diss and denigrate the other party question their credentials to make any arguments against AIT.

SN_Rajan wrote:please do quote 'his first-hand writings' that are Nazi?

ALL of them.

In any writing in which he proposes that Sanskrit is not from India, or its speakers came from someplace else, is Nazi propaganda. This propaganda has as its sole purpose to dispossess Indians of their cultural heritage, to appropriate their ancient accomplishments, and to cause ethnic divisions within India. Just like the Nazis appropriated the Swastika, Witzel & Co. wish to appropriate Sanskrit.

One would have a hard time discovering something that is not Nazi in his writings.

Of course the psychological profile of AIT-Nazis are that in their subconsciousness they know that they, as Europeans, are a people without a past. It has got eerie similarity to people who grow up without a father and hence develop envy and hatred for those people who come from healthy homes.

So AIT is a two-century old effort to appropriate India's rich ancestry.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 Jun 2012 17:51

All of Manish ji's arguments are based on linguistic evidence and that no evidence of horse is found in India. And Bji told you few posts above why linguistic proof is not scientific proof which you so insist. It appears your demand for scientific proof is just for anti-AIT/AMT people, you will swallow hook, line and sinker all that is dished out by AIT vadis. Atleast you should be consistent no?

Either you didn't go through all the posts or are being selective in what you want to read. When asked for proof of PIE, Manish drew blank, Rajesh ji asked why no mention of mare's milk is found in Rg Veda even though there is mention of horse in it, shiv ji asked why showed that Aryans seems to have selective memory forgetting the places they might have seen along the way to IVC. Bji has linguistic arguments which Manish ji too concedes that they are speculative. very few of the arguments I posted. So since you already reached a conclusion that these arguments are not good enough, it will be illuminating to know why these arguments dont hold water.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 18:02

SN_Rajan wrote: with all that due respect, i do disagree with you on this topic as i see mostly fancy pseudo-scientific speculation, and indiscriminate trashing of all disagreements.

Good and thanks. Now you indicate seriousness to me. I wasn't sure if you were in it just for trolling.

This is how I view the subject. If you stick to what is acceptable as science, and what will be accepted by peer reviewed journals it is next to impossible (not impossible, just nearly impossible) to come up with anything other than an Aryan invasion or migration theory. By making this statement I am not saying that all other arguments, including my own are unscientific or false. There are certain well known hurdles which only lead to controversy. All of us know them all, but I will explain. You will have to read as patiently as I will be patient in explaining, because the explanation cannot be a one liner

Early on in his book Anthony clearly states the problems that linguists face in terms of dating anything. He says that for linguists to be able to date anything, they have to tie up with archaeology, which is perfectly true. Of course Anthony goes on to say that it is sometimes possible to link language with society and geography and in a recursive manner link it to dates, but let me not quibble about that.

For a linguist to date the Rig Veda the only tools he has are the content of the work itself. A detailed analysis of the work suggests a particular type of society. If that society must be dated and identified, it needs geography and it needs solid archaeological correlation. Please note the underlined words/expressions. I will bring them up later.

So what have linguists done?

1. They have identified the Rig Veda as having been written by a pastoral, non urban society
2. They have recognized that the society associated with the Rig Veda held horses in high esteem
3. They have noted that the verses refer to chariots, with some reference to spoked wheels
4. They accept that literal meanings may not always be correct and that the language of the Rig Veda can have ambiguous meanings
5. They note the lack of urbanism in the narrative, and the almost complete lack of mention of cities.

From this information they still have to identify geography and a date. Geography seems fairly straightforward, it is the Punjab area despite some rhetoric about the Haraxwati in Afghanistan (Witzel) and fast flowing rivers in central Asia.

At this point let me state the first problem that crops up. This "first problem" is in the historic nomenclature of Sanskrit as an "indo-Aryan" language that was later changed to a more politically correct "Indo-European". When the name was first coined, it was automatically assumed that the people who created the Sanskrit language could never ever have originated in India (the Indus region). The language was seen as so perfect that it had to have European origin, given its similarity to European languages. This set the ball rolling for a search for the origin of "Indo-Aryan" (Indo-European) langauges. Until the end of WW2 (1945) all literature for 150 years was about finding a European origin for Sanskrit. At no point in time was there any scholar of any type who considered that Sanskrit might have originated in india and moved out.

Now when we talk of science and "peer reviews" (and I hope you are serious about being fair) and you are searching for the origins of an "Indo-European" language like Sanskrit, basic scientific logic should tell you that the origin could be
1. In India
2. In Europe
3. Somewhere between India and Europe.

If you look at all the scholarship that has existed about this issue you find that for 150 years, until after WW2 there was never any thought given to a possible Indian origin for Sanskrit. In more recent years you still find that the top scholars have not given that idea a thought at all. No academic time or space is wasted in even asking if a language that became Sanskrit could possible have emerged in India. For a bunch of people who call themselves "scholars", from various places including Harvard, that is a very very odd thing. They have all merely continued on the same 150-200 year old pre-world war 2 path of searching for the origins of Sanskrit outside India. The origins of this controversy is that those very same scholars are stuck. They know very well that there is not an iota of proof that Sanskrit or its predecessor originated outside India.

Now come the linguists of the modern era. They are certainly scholars and have certainly applied the latest modelling methods to their field of study. But they are in the same rut I mentioned above. There is a need to "model" language so that there is a proto-sanskrit outside India. There is no reason why it should be that way. No one stops to ask if Sanskrit might have been cooked up in India. The proof is constructed for Sanskrit to be from outside India by the creation of many intermediate and non existing "proto langauges" that all lead down to Sanskrit on the one hand and European languages on the other hand. The existing facts are adjusted to fit that model, by the creation of multiple non existent languages. But this is very easily disputed and torn down. The "created" languages are all admitted to be hypothetical and not real so one can excuse the linguists for merely building tools for useful hypotheses. No crime in that.

But at this stage we come to the next level of controversy that has been created. After creating all those proto languages, linguists such as Anthony have gone around looking for some geography to place those proto langauges. Those proto languages are human created and fake. They are non existent, imagined model languages. But the linguists are looking for a place to put those languages.

So what have they done? They have taken the Aryan Migration theory and used it to find a place for those non existent languages. By doing that they have moved from theoretical linguistic modelling to "creation of history", and fake history at that. The theory is that Indo-European (formerly "Aryan") language speakers (assumed to have originated outside India) existed somewhere between India and Europe, speaking a proto language - an ancestor of Sanskrit. They have found archaeological remains of a central Asian society with evidence of horses and chariots and have judged that this society was just like Aryan society. And they have declared that these people spoke some form of proto-Sanskrit (Proto Indo European). And they have taken the date of those archaeological finds of horse graves - about 2000 BC, to create a timeline for the migration of language to Iran and later India and a timeline for the Rig Veda

This thread has been used to point out the innumerable holes in all the theories that exist so far. This BRF thread is essentially a reactionary and revisionist topic because it does not conform to "conventional scholarly wisdom". You do not have to agree with any of this. if you choose to stick to conventional scholarly wisdom, you will have company of many scholars. But I will not be on that side.

I smell blood here. Everything about "conventional scholarship" is on the wrong foot here. The dates, the geography and timelines and tired old assumptions are all open to question. And Witzel's reactions, and your own in a sense are an indicator that it is possible to go in "for the kill" so to speak.

I hope you are able to give my view a patient and "fair" reading.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2012 18:12

shiv saar,

very good summary!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jun 2012 18:39

JEM, just tell which other nations or conglomerates are filled with "invasion" as their history(even past is fine)? They rape, plunder, and go about doing that since vikings as their known fore-fathers.

If not Europe, no world would have discovered by the TFTA superior race. Now, they have to start linking to the fact that everything is off centered to Europe or nearby lands., or anything is remote and white enough.

BTW, you/one should check your skin color even to look at PIE chart., and see if you qualify to read it. It takes about minimum 20,000 years to change skin colors.

There are lot more idiots in our country who would fight for fair skins vs. not so fair skins.. and start relating.. and assume, they are direct decendents of viking. Don't be surprised to thear that as well.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jun 2012 18:43

SN_Rajan wrote:Shiv Ji,
with all that due respect, i do disagree with you on this topic as i see mostly fancy pseudo-scientific speculation, and indiscriminate trashing of all disagreements.

Sorry for the intrusion into a question addressed to another : but you seem to miss the point entirely. If you had really some in depth knowledge of archeology as well as linguistics - you would see that the former uses "scientific" tools, but its final conclusions depend on pre-existing given rules of association between artefacts and culture - which in turn are a legacy of linguistic or historical speculation.

in my short googling, i read-up Witzel paper, and the hindu and frontline debates, and i find it reasonable.

This is a statement of blind faith and not of reason. These are not conclusions that can be independently arrived at since we do not have a time machine - and this makes all the difference from science. If Hindu-the-news-outlet and Frontline debates are your measure of scientific source then that does make it hilarious. These two carefully filter out alternative arguments to their political ideological news agenda. The tone of political propaganda inside these publications so-called scientific debates - is obvious in the one sided leeway given to such essentially political propagandists as Prof. Thapar. You can find Prof. Thapars harangues on "rewriting of " Indian history in the Frontline magazine. If you have any experience of podium based political harangues to rallies - you will not find much difference in the tone and language used.

btw, i am not sure here how many here have actually read Witzel to call his views Nazi - anybody please do quote 'his first-hand writings' that are Nazi?

i also read few chapters of Anthony - again i find it reasonable.

Well many faith adherents find their faith's revelations "reasonable". In America, "creationists" find creation in 7 days and world's birth 6000 years ago reasonable. You cannot find reason by reading a few papers of Witzel googled, and a few chapters from Anthony. What you fail to understand is that - Witzel is claiming all his conclusions based on a structure that is built on assumptions on assumptions. Anthony speculates on "gaps". For both of them, there are huge gaps in their constructs which they can only speculate on.

When earlier on in this thread, Anthony was sort of being quoted as the definitive bible on this issue, I pointed out that Anthony himself only cautiously advances "possible scenarios". He has no proof to decide in any of the directions. In such situations, archeology turns to linguistics.

Witzels position is based on a theory of so-called-sound change laws, which have been partly extrapolated from modern observations on a limited sample of already modern and established languages, which might have been influenced heavily by the very languages Witzelians are so keen to see as the IE. If you really had some exposure to linguistics texts, you will see that each of these generalizations are challenged in case and field studies - there are always some new groups being studied that contradict the generality of the sound-change laws.

Moreover, both Anthony and Witzel have carefully avoided the most interesting cases - where linguistics and archeology very clearly contradict each other. Two of these are the cases of the proto-Italic and the proto-Greek.

i have said so in my post: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1301188
plus, further clarifications on my views: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1301188

now, i am trying try to find counter-evidence. gievn the nature of topic, i wanted 'peer reviewed scientific journals'

so far, i do not find anything credible and coherent, capable of explaining all the factors under 'logical parsimony'. i see lots and lots of speculation and assorted pseudo-science.

As I suggested, perhaps you do not understand what "science" means. By their very nature, both archeology and linguistics are speculative. They are ultimately dependent on how humans interpret the evidence. In physics or chemistry or mathematics, or experimentally verifiable extensions of these - there is no dependence on "interpretation". As such what your "science versus pseudo-science" reduces to is - a clash between alternative speculations.

the 1 publication(Kazanas) that wiki refers in OIT page seems to be reservation/special candidate, not a merit candiate.

while further browsing in this thread itself - i see clinching rebuttals from ManishH:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1300141

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1300080

There have been other references to Kazanas publications, albeit only a selection of them - on this thread. ManishH ji tried rebuttals. Whether they are clinching or not depends on how much the underlying argument in his attempts - which are based on the very PIE construct and methodology of reconstruction which we are challenging and questioning - are really valid as assumptions. You accept a position without knowing how the arguments have been framed and based on what theorizing - and you claim to debunk alternatives as "pseudo-science"?

you freely say:
one will ask where is the evidence? what is credibility of the evidence? what kind of scientific peer review rigor has gone into that evidence? if it is all sorted out, why is not yet appearing any scientific journals? surely we have desi's who publish do in other scientific journals and do get recognition(Amartya Sen, Venkatrman, etc, etc) - but, none in OIT?

so, given all that, what conclusions one is supposed to draw?

First linguistics is not a science, and archeology uses scientific methods - but its conclusions are dependent on non-sciences such as history and linguistics. In such cases, peer review means the approval or disapproval of an entrenched group with a certain belief in a paradigm. At this time point, there is no incentive for the paradigm to change in the existing numerically and institutionally dominant group - since the paradigm suits both the Anglo-Saxon academic-imperialist vision in he west, as well as Indian ruling regimes.

Amartya Sen's work was not politically contradictory to the needs of the western regimes - at least at the time frame in which he first formulated his theory based on social choice theory. So he had relatively less difficulty in getting published.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 24 Jun 2012 18:45

Good summary, Shivji.

Both the mare's milk and the RV-Harappa geography arguments seem persuasive enough to settle the issue against AMT. Haven't see any rebuttals from Manish on the matter.

Have we also considered the fact that Sanskrit is widely acknowledged by historical linguists to be the closest to PIE - and by their own rules that strongly argues for a home base for PIE that is in the Sanskrit homeland? Not sure if this fact was brought up earlier on this thread.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jun 2012 18:54

SN_Rajan wrote:Just because of historical, real and imagined wrongs, we can't be fed with pseudo-scientific fancies in 2012. We need to seek our 'dharma' and 'satya' with moderation, not any fancy extremes and superstitions. now, running for cover...

see, your AIT was written with pseudo-...err, perfect or real-invasionist fancies. everyone's dharma is atleast believe in their parents, including you. so, it is not an assumption to say I am taught of my basic skills by parents. similarly, our dharma and satya are born again and again via our parents.

ask them where did they learn, they will point to their parents., and after some reasonable time, you are at infinity and into superstitions.. and end up in fancy extremes like "running for cover" mindset theories.

btw, do you know fibonacci visited India before he discovered fibonacci numeration? and did you care to check where it came from?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 Jun 2012 19:17

Nice Summary shiv ji, You should have also explained perhaps about the selective amnesia of geography of aryans as they made way from Steppes along the way to IVC as you described before.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jun 2012 19:47

ManishH ji's questions about neolithic evidence in RV and the challenge of "bronze" was interesting.

As I see it, both ManishH ji and the AIT position on RV are crucially based on the follwoing assumptions

(1) the structure of RV represent a hierarchical, unilinear in time progression of events and composition.

Criticism: this is a Biblical viewpoint of narratives. However even in the formation of the Hebrew bible [literally just the book from Greek], the insertion and deletion is not a coherent unilinera process. That is later compositions are simply not necessarily added to the end of the previous edition. They are inserted according to perceived relevance and often, according to the prevalent political-social imperatives of the scribe. In fact texts or narrative portions were often deleted and replaced - as has often been done with the various versions of the "Bible".

The RV crucially differs from the Hebrew attempt at a legitimizing text, in that RV has no obvious pretensions of being a "history". Hence it has no inherent incentive or compulsion to represent or adhere to a chronology.

What is being interpreted as older or later in the RV by the Witzelian corporation, is therefore crucially dependent both on the chronological ordering based on position within text, as well as on the very laws of so-called sound change which were originally constructed to fit the hypothesis of a PIE different from Sanskrit and coming into India from outside.

If these laws are suspect in their application to the historical setting, and we drop the assumption of earlier-chapters == earlier composition assumption, we have an entirely different ball game.

(2) the usage of words and expressions have remained unchanged from RV into Sanskrit and other so-called successor languages.

Criticism : real world processes yield ample proof of not only overloading but also of transmutation of meaning and implication in entity-defined-by-other-entities based languages. In Sanskrit, or RV - the language seems to be entity-defined-by-functional-relationships based. As such, entities could change more easily while they are being kept constant in usage as expressions/words denoting functionality.

This makes all of aswa, ratha, and ayas problematic to interpret definitively as their modern equivalents.

(3) the RV can be taken literally.

Criticism : this is a huge leap of faith. RV, as we have discussed many times, obviously shows huge penchant for symbolic and encoded messaging. Even the odd bits and pieces we have discussed here should have struck enquiring minds.

For example, the "sacrificial" race horse follows "its kin - the goat". Now this is interesting - so the great aswa is a relative of the goat?!!! But, no, it has an alternative possible clue - and an astronomical one.

There are others, even about the Maruts.

The significance of "aswa" in RV could be symbolic, even in the sacrifices, and a possible reference to a growing cult of the sun. Thus its symbolic higher occurrence frequency need not reflect an actual societal preponderance of the modern "horse".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 20:43

Arjun wrote:
Both the mare's milk and the RV-Harappa geography arguments seem persuasive enough to settle the issue against AMT.

Oh absolutely! But there is a reason why I persisted with the domesticated horse question. My reply to Rajan was already too long to include that point.

You see linguists are tied down by archaeology and all people who like to call themselves "scholars" are tied down by the need to be credible to their peers. That ensures that most people, barring the boldest, do not make waves or "rock the boat" too much.

Linguists might possibly be willing to factor in an earlier date for the Rig Veda. They have nothing to lose as long as all the theoretical objections posed by their modelling are fulfilled. But what happens in practice is that science demands absolute proof, peer reviewable for "horse domestication". No matter what anyone might say about horse domestication the ONLY evidence that is accepted is absolute evidence of human interaction with horses. This means that he only serious way any "scientist" can demonstrate "proof of domestication" is a chance finding of specific horse bones that show wear and tear of specific teeth or the chance finding of a grave with the "bit" conveniently located where it should be near the skull of the horse. The chances of achieving this sort of scientific certainty is very remote. If you find only leg bones, ribs or the wrong teeth you're out. Add to that the possibility that early "bits" were wood or leather that certainly would have rotted away in a few centuries. So despite other circumstantial, less certain evidence, "proof" of domestication of horses is dependent on the above certainty. Even if horses had been domesticated 2000 or more years prior to such chance grave findings, the only "proof" that is accepted is the ridiculously stringent one I have stated above. This is guaranteed not to be fulfilled in most horse remains even from 500 years ago, let alone 5000 years.

But when I suggested that the Rig Veda may have been composed as early as 3000 BC, before the Harappan civilization, I was also looking for some evidence that horses may have been domesticated before then. Such evidence exists. Part of the issue is what I see as a "self goal" by modern day scholars in insisting only on accepting proof of horses as "Equus caballus" (a very difficult point to prove from ancient horse remains) . But there is plenty of evidence to say that in ancient days, onagers were used pretty much as horses. And the dates fit in well with the idea that the Rig Veda composers may have known about horses and domestication long before 2000 BC, and possibly as early as 3000 BC.

I have no problem with dating the Rig Veda to 3000 BC if everything else fits. But guess who has a problem with that?

You see if archaeologists and linguists really applied "science" they would do a research study where they compared how much remains of known domesticated horses from 100, 500, and say 1000 years ago to ask themselves if it is a realistic goal to demand specific teeth as proof. Oh, but their science does not seem to go that far.

Like I said. I smell blood.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2012 20:59

Power of Observation & Power of Judgment

From the Western PoV, study of the history and mythology of another people and commenting upon it, making theories, and publishing books also constitutes a big part of their claim to domination.

It is when one group makes the other an object of study and itself becomes the subject, that it raises the group to the status of superiority. It is similar to a human watching the work of ants or a God watching over all creation. One of the most ennobling power there is, is the power of observation, and that is a power the West has tried to appropriate for itself.

We Indics become the object, the West becomes the subject. All this "peer reviewing" in the West, is basically the West's claim to be the sole guardians of this power. Nobody else can be allowed to have this power, unless one subjugates to the will of the West and prostrates before the West, and only after a due process of internship would the other, the Indian, be allowed into the group and be given the power of observation. However the other power, the power of judgment, should be kept exclusively in the hands of the West.

So Indians who enter the "Council of Pirs" can only collect data and analyze it some extent, but the business of building theories is the exclusive reserve of Westerners.

And as we know, in education curricula of India, comes only the summaries as compiled by those who belong in the "Council of Pirs" and have their interests at heart.

So OIT will not get any "peer-reviews". For that India would have to build its own system of "peer-reviewing". Problem is most Indians with the PhDs are already part of the "Incestuous Council of Pirs". So what to do?!

I don't know if Rajiv Malhotra has really really understood this, though I think he has, what a great feat he has achieved. He is Prometheus who has stolen the fire (power of observation and judgment) from Zeus (West) and given it to the Indics through his Purva-Paksha in his book "Being Different".

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jun 2012 21:01

http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/01/stories ... 992000.htm

Significance of Mayiladuthurai find (2006)

Links between Harappa and Neolithic Tamil Nadu

The first sign stood for "muruku" and the second for "an." Together, they read as "Murukan." They formed a very frequent combination on the Indus seals and sealings, especially from Harappa.

Not only do the Neolithic people of Tamil Nadu and the Harappans share the same script but the same language." In Tamil Nadu, the muruku symbol was first identified from a pottery graffiti at Sanur, near Tindivanam. B.B. Lal, former Director-General of ASI, correctly identified this symbol with sign 47 of the Indus script. In recent years, the muruku symbol turned up among the pottery graffiti found at Mangudi, near Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu, and at Muciri, Kerala. But this was the first time that a complete, classical Indus script had been found on a polished Neolithic stone celt, Mr. Mahadevan pointed out. He emphasised that the importance of the discovery was independent of the tentative decipherment of the two signs proposed by him.

har har .. appan!

http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt ... signs.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2012 21:25

RajeshA wrote: For that India would have to build its own system of "peer-reviewing".

Long ago, i was at a medical meeting with some seriously senior specialists in the field and the lament was that there was so much to publish but getting journal space in Weshtren "Pir" reviewed journals was difficult. I suggestd that we start our own peer reviewed journal - but that was shot down by sheer dhimmitude in which some of the biggest specialists did not consider themselves competent to do that

But my own views were shaped by the ease with which one paper written by me went to a very well known "International" Journal by the back door. I had written the paper and readied it for publication in the UK and the last bit was added by a specialist in a related field - a young Brit who was trying to build his career. And promptly his boss called one of the journal's editors and said "Hello Simon, Andrew has just written a paper blab blah blah". Promptly, the paper got accepted and published with Andrew's name first, my name second and 95% my sweat and words. It still exists, locatable in the index medicus while my desi friends would have given an arm and a leg to get a paper in that journal to further their careers. Such is our dhimmitude about a peer review system that works nepotistically when needed.

We need to have our own publications that we peer review.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2012 21:27

For reference purposes

The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Vol. 128, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2008), pp. 295-302
By Prods Oktor Skjaervo
Agha Khan Professor of Iranian studies at department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations in Harvard University.
The Horse in Indo-Iranian Mythology

It is a review of a book from Philippe Swennen

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2012 21:29

What do they say about horse in the Avesta? Does anybody know?

I read that Maruts are considered daevas in Avesta and as such are not particularly liked. Considering that they were supplying horses to the PUrus from Arabia/Central Asia, that would be expected, I guess.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2012 21:35

Horses In Pre-Islamic Persia

In Iran, skeletal remains of a native breed of small size, have been discovered in prehistoric sites: in a cave at Behistun (Bisotun), 48 km east of Kermanshah and in Tamtama, a mountainous area west of lake Urmia, in Tel-i Iblis, south-central Iran, and in Godin Tepe, central Zagros. This breed has tentatively been cosidered as the origin of the "Caspian miniature horse" now occasionally found in Mazandaran.

In Iran, we have late second-millennium archeological evidence from "Marlik" (objects made of horse teeth) and early first-millennium skeletal remains from "Gian", "Tepe Sialk", "Coga Zanbil", and "Susa". It is from this period that large quantities of "Lurisatn Bronzes" have been discovered, and among them are many harness bits and bridle pieces as well as items for decorating horses heads and chests, of the types which are depicted on Assyrian palace reliefs.

Bronze and iron harness and bridle pieces have been discovered at Median sites, also Assyrian annals record and reliefs depict campaigns in Media and Median tribute consisting primarily of horses. Especially praised were the horses of "Nishaya" > Nesa, south of Hamadan. Median levels at Nusheh-Jan near Hamadan have produced remains of horses of varied sizes, from miniature horses that stood 1.05-1.10m to horses standing over 1.50m at the witheres and variation from light to heavy types.

Horses standing over 1.5 meters is still really small. And Iranians too were called "horse-riders" and "charioteers".

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 24 Jun 2012 21:41

^^ I know ManishH ji warned not to take similar-sounding names from different traditions and arrive at conclusions. But is there any connection between the "Marut" of Veda and the "Harut and Marut" mentioned in the Qur'an? Could Marut have something to do with ancient Arabic or Hebrew peoples? The people who duplicated the magical arts of the angels Harut and Marut are supposed to be the ancient Babylonians as per Qur'anic narration.

Harut and Marut (Arabic: هاروت وماروت‎) are two angels mentioned in the second Surah of the Qur'an, who were sent down to test the people at Babel or Babylon by performing deeds of magic. (Sura Al-Baqara, verse 102). The Qur'an indicates that although they warned the Babylonians not to imitate them or do as they were doing, some members of their audience failed to obey and became sorcerers, thus damning their own souls.

This technology given by Harut and Marut had something to do with warfare and repelling some aggressor nation.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2012 21:49

Carl ji,

Carl wrote:I know ManishH ji warned not to take similar-sounding names from different traditions and arrive at conclusions. But is there any connection between the "Marut" of Veda and the "Harut and Marut" mentioned in the Qur'an? Could Marut have something to do with ancient Arabic or Hebrew peoples? The people who duplicated the magical arts of the angels Harut and Marut are supposed to be the ancient Babylonians as per Qur'anic narration.

This technology given by Harut and Marut had something to do with warfare and repelling some aggressor nation.

The Kassites, who are also considered Indo-Europeans, are thought to have ruled over Babylonians, and they too had Maruttash which sounds similar to the Sanskrit Marut or Marutah, a Vedic storm god.

To me this Harut and Marut story, it sounds a lot like primitive tribal leaders trying to warn their people not to be impressed and taken in by the 'magical' deeds to wise men, far superior in intellect than them.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2012 22:10

Zahhak

Zahhāk or Zohhāk (in Persian: ضحاک‎) is an evil figure in Iranian mythology, evident in ancient Iranian folklore as Aži Dahāka, the name by which he also appears in the texts of the Avesta. In Middle Persian he is called Dahāg or Bēvar-Asp, the latter meaning "[he who has] 10,000 horses". Within Zoroastrianism, Zahhak (going under the name Aži Dahāka) is considered the son of Angra Mainyu, the foe of Ahura Mazda.

Angra Mainyu is basically referring to the PUrus. The priests of the PUrus were called ANgirases. Mainyu comes from Manu probably.

It seems the Maruts were providing the PUrus with so many horses, that it unnerved the Iranians somewhat.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Jun 2012 22:10

Just a factoid.

Prior to the nineteenth century, {American} cities were traversed almost exclusively on foot. Mounted riders in US cities were uncommon, and due to their expense, slow speeds, and jarring rides, private carriages were rare; in 1761, only eighteen families in the colony of Pennsylvania (population 250,000) owned one - From Horse Power to Horsepower, Eric Morris, ACCESS, Number 30, Spring 2007

From the same paper,

According to one estimate each urban horse probably consumed on the order of 1.4 tons of oats and 2.4 tons of hay per year. One contemporary British farmer calculated that each horse consumed the product of five acres of land, a footprint which could have produced enough to feed six to eight people.